Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1094 (AP)

Goli Suresh Babu v. State of AP

2025-10-08

Y.LAKSHMANA RAO

body2025
ORDER : Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 'the BNSS') by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.183 of 2025 of Tenali l Town Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 'the I.P.C'). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that the Petitioners/A1 and A2 are husband and wife. The de-facto complainant, who had acted as a guarantor for his friend K. Raju in a chit at Repalle, alleged that the 1 st petitioner, who acted as a mediator in the chit transaction, later used forged salary certificates in the name of the de-facto complainant to obtain a chit from Chiranjeevi Chit Fund, Tenali, in 2022. When the 1 st petitioner defaulted on repayment, the chit fund management contacted the de-facto complainant, who then discovered that his salary certificates had been fabricated. Based on his complaint, Crime No.183 of 2025 was registered at Tenali I Town Police Station, Guntur District, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, and 471 read with Section 34 IPC; subsequently, Sections 467 and 472 IPC were also added. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr. Kale Vijaya Raju, learned counsel for the Petitioners respectfully submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioners are the sole earning members of their families, and their arrest would cause irreparable hardship to their dependents. The Petitioners are willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioners have got fixed abode. 4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioners and custodial interrogation period was over and such custody is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.8 and 9 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.8 and 9 in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 5. Per contra, Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners are imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that they may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 6. It is further urged that the prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioners may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the integrity of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 7. Sri S. Ratnababu, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, submits that the petitioners might have committed several similar offences causing financial loss to the de-facto complainant. He further submits that the de-facto complainant received a notice dated 25.09.2025 from the Deputy Registrar of Chits in relation to Chiranjeevi Chit Fund Company, Vijayawada, demanding payment of Rs.3,24,457/-, as he had stood as guarantor for Accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, it was urged to dismiss the criminal petition. 8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 9. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 10. As seen from the record, earlier the petitioners filed Crl.P.No.10068 of 2025 before this Court seeking for quashment of the proceedings in Crime No.183 of 2025 on the file of the Tenali I Town Police Station. As seen from the record, earlier the petitioners filed Crl.P.No.10068 of 2025 before this Court seeking for quashment of the proceedings in Crime No.183 of 2025 on the file of the Tenali I Town Police Station. A learned Single Judge of this Court on 25.09.2025 disposed of the criminal petition directing the investigating officer to comply with the provisions under Section 35(3) of 'the BNSS.,'/41-A of 'the Cr.P.C.,' and also guidelines issued by the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , (2014) 8 SCC 273 . It appears that later the investigating officer added Sections 467 and 472 of 'the I.P.C.,' which are punishable for more than seven years. The Petitioner No.1 is husband of the Petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.2 is working as Government school teacher. The 2 nd respondent/de-facto complainant is also working as school teacher. The petitioner is doing business. It was alleged that salary certificate of the de-facto complainant was forged by the petitioners in connection with some chit transaction. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed certain documents showing that the chit in which the de-facto complainant stood as guarantor for Accused No.1/Petitioner No.1 was already closed. As of now, because of the alleged acts committed by the petitioners, the de-facto complainant/respondent No.2 has not suffered any loss. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled the Petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners. CONCLUSION: 12. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions: i. In the event of their arrest, the Petitioners shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials; ii. The Petitioner shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required; iii. The Petitioners shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses; iv. The Petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a month i.e., on any Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. v. The Petitioners shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioners shall surrender their passport, if any, to the investigating officer. v. The Petitioners shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. vi. The Petitioners shall surrender their passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.